Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM
1. Backscatter from what, when your in a long shadow?

The LMs shadow doesn't cover the entire lunar surface. There is still a lot of light being reflected back on the shaded side of the LM. Here's the
reverse angle. AS12-46-6718. You can clearly see that there is a lot of illuminated
terrain right behind the astronaut as he goes down the ladder.

Also, if that was the case why are the ground shadows so black? You cant have both, pitch a black ground shadow but light shadow on the object
creating it.

Sure you can. There isn't much around that could reflect enough light into the shadows on the ground to be picked up by the camera. Were there some
studio reflectors or softboxes around, they'd be reflecting light into the shadows on the ground as well.

How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?

How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?

How nice, yerself! How be you show us a photo in which the lighting is a dead giveaway of a fake. While you're at it, explain why your evidence is
compelling, and please refrain from referencing some $19.99/CD huckster.

How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?

How nice, yerself! How be you show us a photo in which the lighting is a dead giveaway of a fake. While you're at it, explain why your evidence is
compelling, and please refrain from referencing some $19.99/CD huckster.

Sorry I dont understand language of Doofus.
Make yourself useful and explain why in that photo the lunar terrain is unevenly lit instead of writing vague comments.

Originally posted by FoosM
How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. The Lunar surface in the photo I linked to in my previous post is unevenly lit? Could you
explain in more detail? I don't see anything wrong with how the surface is lit in that photo.

Originally posted by FoosM
How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. The Lunar surface in the photo I linked to in my previous post is unevenly lit? Could you
explain in more detail? I don't see anything wrong with how the surface is lit in that photo. [/quote

Take a look at the astronauts helmet. Zoom in if you have to.
You will see that the left side of the reflection shows a brighter lunar surface than the right side. Its very clear. Yet the red side is the side
where you see more light bounce. Where is that coming from? ANd what is causing the light bounce on the antenna?
His suit, the LM should be fully blocking the sun.

Sorry I dont understand language of Doofus.
Make yourself useful and explain why in that photo the lunar terrain is unevenly lit instead of writing vague comments.

From what I've read throughout this thread, you speak Doofus quite fluently.

Now how 'bout your best example of a fake, in your own words, without merely linking a Jarrah White YT Video? Try being original for a change.

Well sorry, this thread IS about Jarrah White.
Even so, I have been providing other contradictions and anomalies that are not being debunked.

But let me say this, its not about one best evidence. Because even if an astronaut came out and said they faked it, he would be called a demented
drunken liar.

Whats more important is the body of evidence that is tearing Apollo down.
Everything is covered, the motive, the science, the opportunity.
I mean you have books on the subject, videos, movies, forum discussions.
When you have so many people finding so many problems in a story, there is shenanigans at hand.

For example, for a long time I heard people say, well the photography on Apollo is good because the astronauts had plenty of practice, they even took
the cameras home. You know what, I just read in a "confidential" report where they complained about not having enough time to practice with the
cameras. And I believe Aldrin said he had problems setting exposures. LOL. But ill get to that later.

Jarrah offered a challenge to have the following answered
lets see how well you do:

Problem with the cameras is they didn't have EXPOSURE CONTROLS OR LIGHTING CONTROLS!!!

How can Aldrin say such a thing?

Well let me not put words in his mouth.

Lets start with
Colins:

Ijust think that gear ought to be available earlier.
It's one of the things you can get done or at least get
started on 3 or 4 months before the flight, and yet it's
not available. It's another one of those late-arrival
categories. I'm not sure whether it has to do with the
quantity of the training equipment or the fact that we
have to get one flight down before we can get around to
providing for the next one, I think the familiarization
with the cameras (taking them home and taking pictures
while you're flying around the country in T38's) should be done early and not the last couple of weeks. Fr\om the flights that I have been
associated with, it seems to me that it's always been the last month when that stuff magically appears and they want t o t a l k t o you about it and
all that; it should be done earlier, I think....

I think it's ridiculous that we don't have some sort of
automatic exposure control or automatic light control,
or whatever you call it. Commercial cameras are available
where all you do is point and click and the thing is in the right exposure value. And there are even camera? available that have switches where you
can have either a wide field or an average exposure value to giveyoua broad coverage. For example, i f you took black sky against a white booster, it
would average out the black sky and
the white booster. It would give you the average value that might not be optimum for either one,

Then if you wanted to be specific
and throw a l i t t l e switch, which zonks a lightmeter down to a spotmeter kind of thing, you can either point it at
the dark sky or point it at the booster. These things
exist. It's easy to say, well, you can't qualify them,
or this right company doesn't make them, or they're not
rugged enough, or they won't pass the salt spray, and
otherwise raise barriers. If that had been aggressively
pursued, we would have right now in our hands an automatic
camera that would take a hell of lot better pictures than
we are capable of taking, and we could have qualified the
thing by now. I think that should be done, I really do.

I think they are pursuing it with Hasselblads, but, my Lord, they have been pursuing it with Hasselblads for years, ever since the subject first came
up, and I just
don't see any results et we do carry great huge spot-
meters whose utility is questionable, and we manage to develop and carry those frapping things. That Minolta
t spotmeter was not used during the flight. I don't know what flights have used it but I'd gladly swap it for an automatic light control in a
camera. That 2-pound battery
is nothing moreorless than a handle crank; I'd gladly swap it for an automatic lightmeter built into the camera.

Oh man this stuff is good. Mind you, for some it only proves they went to the moon.
LOL

Yeah, why were they so keen on the Hasselblads.
They are difficult cameras to use and master.
And yet, after Apollo 11, they didnt change anything about them,
so much for taking action after an after action report.

I just think that gear ought to be available earlier ...and not the last couple of weeks.

In other words, they got to take the camera home to practice with a "couple of weeks" before the flight.

I think it's ridiculous that we don't have some sort of automatic exposure control or automatic light control,

(Emphasis mine.) In other words, the camera did not have a "magic eye" automatic exposure control or "point and click" capacity, therefore had to
be adjusted manually. As we've been saying and you have been denying.
Please pay attention to the evidence you use to make your case.

I agree. They did have automatic exposure in those days, but it would be useless for their purposes. This latest turn in the thread actually got me
wondering if Kodak developed the "Instamatic" camera in the hopes that it would be used in space. Those clunky film cassettes were perfect for
clumsy space gloves.

I agree. They did have automatic exposure in those days, but it would be useless for their purposes. This latest turn in the thread actually got me
wondering if Kodak developed the "Instamatic" camera in the hopes that it would be used in space. Those clunky film cassettes were perfect for
clumsy space gloves.

Now tell me how that proves anything when the moon was previously mapped prior to Apollo?

What?
As you can see on this illustration does the Japanese jaxa/selene elevation data model perfectly fit with a 30 year old NASA photo. How do you think
this is faked? This is the best proof you can get.

Jarrah offered a challenge to have the following answered
lets see how well you do:

Nice! Exactly what I requested you NOT do! But have it your way! It will take more than a little time, but I'm game.

Lets start with the first two questions.

1) Is Jay Windley's claim that Bart Sibrel lured Buzz Aldrin to the motel [sic] pretending to be a Japanese TV company true?

2) Buzz Aldrin says he did give an interview to a bona fide Japanese TV company before his encounter with Bart Sibrel. Is Aldrin lying?

The notion that Buzz Aldrin thought the Japanese company's interview was 'bona fide' is a bit of a stretch. From Magnificent Desolation
(hardcover, pp 282):

One September morning in 2002, I was in Beverly Hills at the Luxe Hotel, filming a television interview for a Far Eastern TV network, when the
interview began going in a direction that I knew was out of bounds. At first I tried to be cordial, adroitly answering the question, assuming that
the interviewer would recognize my reluctance to talk about inanity, and bring the focus back to a bona fide space subject. Instead the interviewer
began playing a television segment that had aired in the United States on the subject of hoaxes, including a section suggesting that the Apollo 11
moon landing never happened. I was aware of the piece and had been livid when it originally aired. I did not appreciate the interviewer's attempts
to lure me into commenting on it. Lisa had accompanied me to the interview following her early morning triathlon training in the Santa Monica Bay,
and she immediately recognized that this was a flagrant violation of our willingness to conduct the interview in good faith, so she called a halt to
the production. We weren't belligerent, but we did not linger long over our good-byes, either.

Seems a little suspicious, doesn't it? Especially since if you watch 'Astronauts Gone Wild', at 39 minutes into the copy I have, Sibrel himself
states:

'We just paid to rent out the penthouse to shoot up there.'

Was that the same penthouse in which the Japanese TV interview took place? Isn't it suspicious that the interviewer used the same bait-and-switch
tactic that Sibrel had used repeatedly when interviewing Apollo astronauts? How did Sibrel know Buzz was there, and why would he rent the penthouse of
the Luxe (at no small expense) for a shoot if he didn't? If he had some other purpose for shooting in the penthouse, why interrupt it to track down
Buzz? And how did he know the interview had broken up, so that he could chase down Buzz in the foyer?

More than enough strange coincidences to set off my suspicion meter. No wonder these questions weren't added to the list in the YT video.

How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?

You are able to type, on a computer keyboard. Have issues with reading comprehension at times, though, as evidenced a few dozen times...ever been
checked for dyslexia? Seriously, you should have a doctor check you.

I say, also, to everyone who thinks that "Jarrah White" is some sort of 'genius'....the bloke has NOTHING of any significance.

It is a little embarrassing (I feel embarrassed for the people involved) when I read their comments about anything he has put out as
being any good.

Well, in addition....IF someone was impressed by such a schlock movie as "Capricorn One" then I can only :shk: in wonder, and disgust.

But, it certaily helps answer the question:

"Why Are So Many People Fooled By The 'Moon Hoax' BS?"

Anybody who can sit through a stupid, idiotic film like that, and BELIEVE it possible, simply has no, zero, nada, zilch understanding of science.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.